in reply to Re: A case where Mechanize works, LWP doesn't
in thread A case where Mechanize works, LWP doesn't

Again, Mechanized works, the other doesn't so if there was cookies or other nuances it would affect both. What does Mechanize do that LWP doesn't?

The form idea was good, but didn't pan out. Or how did I alter the approach from one to the other?

  • Comment on Re^2: A case where Mechanize works, LWP doesn't

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: A case where Mechanize works, LWP doesn't
by Corion (Patriarch) on Feb 09, 2010 at 16:28 UTC

    While LWP has cookie support, it is not enabled by default. While LWP has support for sending the Referer header, it does not do so by default. WWW::Mechanize basically provides defaults as a web browser would have them to LWP.

    As was mentioned below, get a network sniffer and compare the stream that your LWP implementation sends agasint what your WWW::Mechanize implementation sends. The differences are likely what makes your LWP implementation fail.

[reply]
[d/l]
      Oops. This is the post I missed. Thanks again! basically the questions I have:

      1. Is there a good article on comparing LWP to Mechanize? Or can you point to the area of the PERLDOC that does this?

      2. Can you point to examples using POE & Mechanize? I have several for POE and LWP, but not POE and Mechanize.

      Thanks again especially for the eagle-eye-view one liner - "WWW::Mechanize basically provides defaults as a web browser would have them to LWP" that helped immensely. 8-)

[reply]

        For the "differences" between LWP::UserAgent and WWW::Mechanize, look at the WWW::Mechanize source code.

[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom